On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 10:16:00AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 02:19:57AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 2-clause BSD, as used by the NetBSD Foundation, would be good, too.
>
> Er. Be careful with this statement. The Foundation's policy has varied
> between at least (that I *know* of) 2 and 4 clause licenses. Their
> widespread use of the 4-clause for a time is part of the conversations with
> them about the kernel source, among other things.
>
> Not that 2-clause isn't good; more that folks shouldn't assume that just
> any random thing with the NetBSD copyright on it is 2-clause, unless
> it does in fact appear to be a 2-clause license. Yes, this *should* be
> obvious, but I've run into folks who seem to forget this detail... (ah,
> the joys of trying to hunt down upstreams who haven't been seen in over a
> decade, some of whom now are now CTOs with battalions of secretaries to
> keep them from being bothered...)
I simply meant "as *used*" by the NetBSD Foundation (as opposed to some
crazy other variant of the 4-clause BSD which, say, might drop clauses 1
and 2 but keep 3 and 4); I wasn't trying to imply that it was the sole
license they employed.
Thanks for adding more info, though.
--
G. Branden Robinson | There is no housing shortage in
Debian GNU/Linux | Lincoln today -- just a rumor that
branden@debian.org | is put about by people who have
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | nowhere to live. -- G. L. Murfin